delcyros
Tech Sergeant
I don't think one can say that Bismarck's TDS was "more effective" than the other TDS systems mentioned given that it was never seriously tested. The only torpedoes that struck Bismarck prior to her crippling hit in the stern ran too shallow and struck the armor belt near amidships greatly decreasing the blast effect. The stern hit, while a vulnerable place for any warship was particularily so for the class.
I seriously differ Your opinion. Why? First of all, BISMARCK TDS was seriously tested AND not defeated. It was tested by three torpedohits before the final battle, not two as You say (this is incorrect). One hit by VICTORIOUS airgroup hit the belt and was to shallow (no effect), two from ARK ROYALs airgroup also hit her. One on her stern as mentioned above and the other midships starboard in a proper depth well below the belt. The hit striked the TDS and it worked properly, thus no flooding inboards of the TDS mentioned (for some reasons I can´t explain, Bill Jurens is in possession of the ships flooding controll log, which was rescued by the ships damage engeneerer, handed over to the british. It will be published in Warships International)
Thus BISMARCK´s TDS defeated 18in aerial dropped torpedoes in action.
BUT, BISMARCK was also subject to torpedohits in her final battle. These were standart 21in ones from the cruisers, not the light aerial ones. Again no inwards flooding was caused by them and CAMERON´s diagnoses of the wreckage identified two of these impacts. Submergible remotely controlled drones filmed the adjacent spaces behind and while damage occured to the void and liquid cells, the strengthened bulkhead behind remained intact, thus wreckage analysis could verify survivors testimony in this case.
BISMARCK´s TDS also defeated 21in surface torpedoes.
Whether or not RODNEY hit her with a 23/4in torpedo could not be verified.
Her TDS was good but the whole system was good as well. A very large portion of the ships dwl was protected by the TDS and the ship had excellent compartimentation and the highest metacentric stability of all BB´s of ww2. That helps dealing with flooding.
Yamato, as mentioned faced far more powerful ordinance (TORPEX has twice the explosive power of the traditional TNT based torpedoes + the warheads were larger) and the torpedoes were set at the proper depth hitting under the armor belt. Under such conditions, Yamato still held up very well. Musashi in particular absorbed more torpedoes than any other battleship and remained afloat for hours thx to superb damage control. A Bismarck class would have surcombed from far less IMO.
YAMATO´s TDS failed when hit by 21in US non-TORPEX submarine torpedoes in 1943. And the system evidently failed at the joint between the face hardened and homogenious plates (this is a zone of weakness also for SOUTH DAKOTA and IOWA-classes). It also failed when hit by TORPEX augmented, but rather small aerial dropped torpedoes in 1945, there is no indication that it´s TDS defeated a single torpedo in the final battle. That she held up so well was in part caused by the sheer size of the hul (she was doomed to sink from less impacts anyway)l. MUSASHI did not suffered that many torpedoes as usually given credit for. Japanese survivors have been interrogated, the file can be found in the documents put forward by the US technical mission to Japan. I don´t remember the correct number (less than 10) but a case could be made that SCHARNHORST in 1943 at NORTH CAPE was subject to numerically more more powerful torpedoes (all of them were TORPEX augmented DD surface torpedoes) than was MUSASHI in 1944. MUSASHI´s damage controll was poor, she stayed afloat for some time because the damage of the one side partly levelled off the flooding she received from the other side. It was not superior damage controll but inferior tactics which helped the ship to stay afloat for hours. Her counterflooding abilities were considered inferior to deal with the situation.
Could a BISMARCK take this damage? Certainly not but in all cases mentioned (SCHARNHORST, YAMATO, MUSASHI) the ships would have sunk from fewer hit´s as well. BISMARCK has more protected space (as a part of total hullspace), better general damage controll facilities, more stability and thus more flooding tolerances. But it´s not a ship without weaknesses. It´s not a bad system as a whole. And the decision to revert to vertical strengthened bulkheads (after PBB´s and SCHARNHORST-classes inlcined ones) was a good one.
LITTORIO would not take torpedoes very well. At first because the TDS failed in basically every instance, whenever tested and because LITTORIO´s had the for BB worst metacentric stability. It doesn´t help You when hit and heavily compromises any counterflooding attempts.Littorio's system actually worked as designed, it might be noted too that her steering gear and props had superior redunancy and spacing built into the design vs. Bismarck's. A disabling hit in VV's stern was repaired at sea (granted, sea conditions were lesser) and the ship resumed under her own power to base.
Prince of Wales TDS was well designed if basic but the spacing proved to be inadequate to contain the blast from a theoretical 1000llb charge. However, like Bismarck, what doomed her was a torpedo hit beyond her TDS system that damaged a prop and caused a runaway situation which loosened stuffing glands all the way back to one of her primary engine rooms causing extensive flooding. Poor damage control exaserbated the flooding as many WT hatches were left open.
The KGV class´s TDS suffered from a design defect. The TDS itselve is not poor, rather contrary, I rate it good. The problem lies in the gap between armour deck and TDS, there is one full deck level in height uncovered by the TDS and venting always occurs when hit by a torpedo. Thus a powerful enough torpedo could in theory bypass the TDS without defeating the strengthend bulkhead by flooding inboards via this gap and compromising watertightness by venting effects. Again, the whole class has a low metacentric stability, which doesn´t add any good at all.
Washington was not struck by torpedoes but her sister North Carolina was. This torpedo hit occured abreast turret #1 where the TDS was constrained by the narrowing hull shape and could not obtain full effectiveness. The Japanese torpedo was also far more powerful than the ones that struck Bismarck. Still, NC showed great resiliancey in being able to steam at speed out of the battlefield, her only major damages being her search radar. It was recommended that her #1 turret not fire under any circumstances save a dire emergency lest it weaken the bulkheads further.
It is even more terrible that the TDS failed there. While the explenation is correct, having an inbuildt weakness around the main magazines is simply not acceptable. The TDS is way to narrow where hit. The inclined bulkhead layout also are kind of questionable to me. They gave away in to many cases when tested.
RICHELIEU has a very promising TDS, it also narrows down (much more than BISMARCK but not as worse as NC) to the bow but this is counterbalanced by the gradually thicker strengthened bulkhead. The ship also has good metaceentric stability. A good layout. The problem I see in the whole system is that only 8 out of 18 compartements are protected by the TDS, so in theory You may end up sinking the ship without needing to defeat the ship´s TDS in the first place...
Last edited: